DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non- structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “ means ,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f ) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) “clamping mechanism” in claims 21 and 33, is considered a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ clamping mechanism” in clai ms 21-22, 25-28, 33-35 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof e.g. a screw or spring biased pin . If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim(s) 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 38 recites the limitation "the extender" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 38 should instead recite the clamping mechanism, and for the purpose of compact prosecution will be examined below under this assumption. Claim 39 recites the limitation "the extender" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 39 should instead recite the clamping mechanism, and for the purpose of compact prosecution will be examined below under this assumption. Claim 40 recites the limitation "the extender" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 40 should instead recite the clamping mechanism, and for the purpose of compact prosecution will be examined below under this assumption. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 21-24, 25-2 8 , 33-35, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Agarwal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0058478 A1, hereinafter “Agarwal”). Agarwal discloses, r egarding claim 21, a spinal fixation system (see Fig. 31) , comprising: a receiver (950 , see also para. [0137] “ 950 is similar to the spinal fixation device 910 ” ) including a receiver head (912) at a first end thereof (see annotated Fig. 31 below) and a hook member (915) at a second end thereof (see annotated Fig. 31 below) , the first end having a pair of opposed arms (922) defining a channel (920) therebetween, the channel being configured to receive at least one fixation member ( 19) , the hook member defining an opening (see annotated Fig. 31 below) configured to receive spinal anatomy (940, see Fig. 31) ; and a clamping mechanism (952) operably coupled to the receiver (via threads 954) , the clamping mechanism being selectively movable relative to the receiver head so as to extend into the opening (see Fig. 31 , see also annotated Fig. 31 below) , the clamping mechanism being configured to secure received spinal anatomy in the opening ( see Fig. 31, see para. [0138]) . Regarding claim 22, wherein the clamping mechanism is selectively movable toward the hook member to reduce a size of the opening (see para. [0138]) . Regarding claim 23, wherein the clamping mechanism comprises a screw (952) configured to secure the received spinal anatomy without penetrating the spinal anatomy (see Fig. 31, note surface of 956 shown to be flat and without penetrating the anatomy) . Regarding claim 25, wherein the hook member comprises a blade at a distal end thereof (see annotated Fig. 31 above) , the blade defining an edge of the opening (see annotated Fig. 31 above) . Regarding claim 26, wherein the blade has a bone engagement surface (930) configured to grip received spinal anatomy between the bone engagement surface and the clamping mechanism (via ribs 932, see para. [0132]) , the bone engagement surface being roughened to enhance engagement with the spinal anatomy (via ribs 932, see para. [0132]) . Regarding claim 27, wherein the hook member extends at an angle between about 45 and 130 degrees (see annotated Fig. 31 above) . Regarding claim 28, wherein the angle is about 90 degrees (see annotated Fig. 31 above) . Agarwal discloses, regarding claim 33, a spinal fixation system (see Fig. 31) , comprising: a receiver (950 , see also para. [0137] “ 950 is similar to the spinal fixation device 910 ” ) comprising: a pair of opposed arms (922) defining a channel (920) therebetween at a proximal end thereof (see annotated Fig. 31 above) , and a hook member (915) defining an opening (see annotated Fig. 31 above) configured to receive spinal anatomy (940, see Fig. 31) , wherein a size of the opening is variably adjustable via a clamping mechanism (952, see para. [0138]) configured to clamp spinal anatomy received in the opening (see Fig. 31, see para. [0138]) , wherein the clamping mechanism is seated in an opening (906) at a base of the receiver (902) . Regarding claim 34, wherein the hook member comprises a blade at a distal end thereof (see annotated Fig. 31 above) , the blade defining an edge of the opening (see annotated Fig. 31 above) . Regarding claim 35, wherein the blade has a bone engagement surface (930) configured to grip received spinal anatomy between the bone engagement surface and the clamping mechanism (via ribs 932, see para. [0132]) , the bone engagement surface being roughened to enhance engagement with the spinal anatomy (via ribs 932, see para. [0132]) . Regarding claim 38, wherein the clamping mechanism is selectively movable toward the hook member to reduce a size of the opening (see para. [0138]) . Regarding claim 39, wherein the clamping mechanism comprises a screw (952) configured to secure the received spinal anatomy without penetrating the spinal anatomy (see Fig. 31, see para. [0138]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim(s) 24, 29-3 0 , 36-37, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, as applied to claims 21 and 33 above, and in view of Haider (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0130659 A1, hereinafter “Haider”). Agarwal discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, as previously set forth above, except r egarding claim 24, wherein the clamping mechanism comprises a pin configured to secure the received spinal anatomy while penetrating the spinal anatomy ; r egarding claim 29, wherein the clamping mechanism comprises a pin biased proximally toward the channel ; r egarding claim 30, wherein the pin is biased via a spring disposed within the receiver ; r egarding claim 36, wherein the clamping mechanism comprises a pin biased proximally toward the channel ; r egarding claim 37, wherein the pin is biased via a spring disposed within the receiver ; and r egarding claim 40, wherein the clamping mechanism comprises a pin configured to secure the received spinal anatomy while penetrating the spinal anatomy. Haider discloses a spinal fixation system (see Figs. 1-3) with a receiver (26), hook member (22), and clamping mechanism (34), wherein the clamping mechanism can be a screw (34, see Fig. 2a) or alternatively can be substituted with a pin (5 2 , see Fig. 2f) biased via a spring ( 54, see Fig. 2f, see para. [0031] ) in order to provide suitable alternatives to a screw that are capable of securing the bone in place in relation to the hook (see paras. [0030]-[0031]) and further allows for tension between the pin and the rod (33) received in the receiver (see para. [0031]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the screw clamping mechanism in Agarwal to be replaced with a pin biased by a spring in view of Haider in order to provide suitable alternatives to a screw that are capable of securing the bone in place in relation to the hook and further allows for tension between the pin and the rod received in the receiver. Claim(s) 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Haider, as applied to claims 21 and 29 above, and in further view of Legallois et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20 15 /0 112391 A1, hereinafter “ Legallois ”) . Agarwal in view of Haider disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, as previously set forth above. Agarwal in view of Haider further discloses, regarding claim 31, wherein the pin is configured to sit in the receiver head (see para. [0031] of Haid e r); and regarding claim 32, wherein the pin is configured to be biased distally into the opening via a fixation member (33 of Haid e r) received in the channel (see para. [0031] of Haider). Agarwal in view of Haid e r fails to explicitly disclose, regarding claim 31, wherein the pin comprises an upper saddle; and regarding claim 32, wherein the fixation member received in the channel contacts the upper saddle. Legallois discloses a spinal fixation system (see Fig s . 1 - 2) with a clamping mechanism (60) , wherein the top surface of the clamping mechanism includes an upper saddle ( 65 , see Fig. 1) in order to enable the clamping mechanism correctly seat in full engagement the fixation member and prevent rotation of the clamping mechanism relative to the vertebra (see para s . [00 84 ] and [0086] ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to filed the top of the pin that engages with the fixation member in Agarwal in view of Haider to include an upper saddle in further view of Legallois in order to enable the pin to correctly seat in full engagement the fixation member and prevent rotation of the clamping mechanism relative to the vertebra . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 . The following references disclose hooks with mechanisms for reducing the opening size: Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michelle C. Green whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7051 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday between 9am-5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo C. Robert , at (571) 272-4719 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /M.C.G/ Examiner, Art Unit 3773 /JACQUELINE T JOHANAS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3773